Another Buckingham

Submitted by brtime on May 23, 2012 - 9:15am

Well, pursuant to my earlier comments on the previous Buckingham Case thread, I finally convinced my buddy to part with his last night at a local watch meeting in Rockford. (If I do say so myself, I think this was a textbook example of the art of gentle persuasion, but that's another story. Suffice to say I have been working with this guy for two years.)

Anyway, here it is:

As you can see, the dial and hands are nowhere near to those shown on this file image of the Buckingham borrowed from this site's database:

The dial and hands on mine appear much more modern, so I'm guessing a swap out at some point. The serial number on the movement in my watch is 203,505:

The moon symbol could indicate 1928, or 1938. It is marked as a 17 jewel movement. But in any event, this movement is shot; the balance is broken and the hairspring looks messed up. So my plan is to transplant another 8AN with the serial number 21,196:

This movement has an arrowhead symbol on it, located elsewhere on the plate, indicating 1937 year of production. It is signed as a 15 jewel movement, despite bearing the same Caliber of 8AN. The huge difference in serial numbers is utterly confounding to me in terms of trying to determine which movement is older, given that the moon symbol could either be 1928 or 1938.

Now, my remaining challenge will be to find a correct dial and hands, and hope that Bulova didn't change the position of the holes for the dial feet on the "good" 8AN with the 15 jewels! Oh, yes, and of course a crystal. The adventure continues. But now at least I have the starts of a Buckingham.

For what it's worth, and to add my 2 cents to the enamel/non enamel discussion that's taking place, my specimen does have evidence of some type of "blacking" whether it be enamel or perhaps some type of ink that was used, either originally, or subsequently to the watch being sold.

I know that prices are not to be mentioned here, but I will be happy to tell anyone how much I paid for the watch if you would like to PM me.

The Dial and Hands are correct and I've often referred to this configuration as a 'dress' style of Dial. (non luminous) which has been seen in various models of era - true art deco and personally I prefer.